This is what the text says:
You really did it very well. You took me in completely. Until after the alarm of fire, I had not a suspicion. But then, when I found how I had betrayed myself, I began to think. I had been warned against you months ago. I had been told that if the King employed an agent it would certainly be you. And your address had been given me. Yet, with all this, you made me reveal what you wanted to know. Even after I became suspicious, I found it hard to think evil of such a dear, kind old clergyman. But, you know, I have been trained as an actress myself. Male costume is nothing new to me. I often take advantage of the freedom which it gives. I sent John, the coachman, to watch you, ran upstairs, got into my walking-clothes, as I call them, and came down just as you departed. Well, I followed you to your door, and so made sure that I was really an object of interest to the celebrated Mr. Sherlock Holmes. Then I, rather imprudently, wished you good-night, and started for the Temple to see my husband.
It's sad that I know the text well enough that I can pull up an e-version and search for specific sentences, for the record. There are far more important things I should be remembering.
Oh, so there was textual evidence she'd been warned specifically about Holmes. Cool. (I haven't read it since ~1990 or so.) You were wondering who specifically had warned her?
PMM, I'm reading between your lines, so smack me down if needed, but why is it sex work if someone you're not married to (if you haven't specified their emotional relationship, I'm just assuming it's not relevant) supports you, but not sex work if you marry them and they provide exactly the same sort of support? You haven't put a restriction on what the kept woman is providing for the keeper, just that there's a wife in the picture too, so she's not providing a marriage certificate, and whatever she's giving, someone else might be giving something in the same arena.
You say she was "only" going to be a kept woman, as if there's a hierarchy in which she fell short of an acceptable or desirable goal. If you are implying that, whose hierarchy is it? Hers, yours, or society's?
You say she was "only" going to be a kept woman, as if there's a hierarchy in which she fell short of an acceptable or desirable goal. If you are implying that, whose hierarchy is it? Hers, yours, or society's?
Oh, hers. She cared about the opinion of society and the done thing far more than I ever have. She was an atheist who told me once that she'd had all her children formally baptised into the Anglican Church because that was the done thing. And she did, in the end, leave Cliff because she fell in love with someone else who was unattached.
PMM, I'm reading between your lines, so smack me down if needed, but why is it sex work if someone you're not married to (if you haven't specified their emotional relationship, I'm just assuming it's not relevant) supports you, but not sex work if you marry them and they provide exactly the same sort of support?
I probably should have specified emotional relationship/expectations up there. Of course, I'll need to actually find where my blurred lines are there.
But Anna Nicole Smith's marriage to the really old dude? And anyone younger than 30 with Hef these days? Totally sex work.
But Anna Nicole Smith's marriage to the really old dude? And anyone younger than 30 with Hef these days? Totally sex work.
Because there's no way anyone could love Hugh Hefner? Or no way Anna Nicole could love anyone? I am not supposed to be the romantic one here, but that seems rather absolute about people neither of us actually know.
If it were *me*, that would be sex work, but I can't speak for strangers.
I probably should have specified emotional relationship/expectations up there
But there's no inherent reason (as in, not just talking about your grandmother here) the kept woman can't be the emotional primary in the group of relationships. Would that still make it sex work?
I think what makes it sex work for me is if you would not be having sex with that person if you were not getting financial gain for it.
But there's no inherent reason (as in, not just talking about your grandmother here) the kept woman can't be the emotional primary in the group of relationships. Would that still make it sex work?
Hmm. I suppose if you were the emotional primary, possibly not. (But, again, I may still mentally file it as such, depending on the particulars and the extent of support given.)
Because there's no way anyone could love Hugh Hefner? Or no way Anna Nicole could love anyone? I am not supposed to be the romantic one here, but that seems rather absolute about people neither of us actually know.
Because Occam suggests that beautiful young women rarely flock to really old, really wealthy men for the sake of love alone. I'm sure they could have fond feelings for them, but doubt that Cupid's arrow is the only thing involved.
